The Magazine's riddle: the cover

Jacqui Brocker

Message 58598 · 5 May 2010 16:37:32 · Fixed-width font · Whole thread

Previous message: The Magazine's riddle: the solution (Anselm Lingnau)
Next message: The Magazine's riddle: the solution (Lara Friedman-Shedlov)
Previous in thread: The Magazine's riddle: the cover (smiskoe)
Next in thread: Flags of Our Fathers (hways)

>I thought I would post the cover of the magazine... I hope it is not great infringement of >copyright.
>You can find it here:
>http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3229334/Scan.jpg

>Here is the swastika Brown (British prime
minister)
>http://www.littlegreenfootballs2.com/2009/05/06/swastika-appears-behind-gordon-brown-in-picture/

Perhaps
I wasn't clear in my
last message, so I'll
speak more plainly
now.

What's being put forwad
is this: SCD being
associated with camp is like
Gordon Brown being
associated with Nazis.
The problem with this
comparison is that Nazis are
evil, and as far as
I'm concerned, camp is
not. Therefore, making the
analogy is a bit like saying 'camp=evil.' I suspect this was
not your intention (as you say yourself you don't find camp offensive), but bare in mind there are large swathes of society who *do* think
camp=evil, so I think you can appreciate the comparison was somewhat poorly chosen.

>To Jacqui, there is also the recent Clint Eastwood film, Flags of our fathers, which is >about a famous WWII picture which is later revealed to have been staged. Nevertheless it

>captured the
imagination of the people and
became quite iconic. (there is another
>example in recent British politics, but I shan't bore you with
it).

Well, if we're going to make random film recommendations...I'm rather fond of the German film 'The Lives of Others' (Das Leben der Anderen), about the Stasi in East Germany, and also the animated film 'Persepolis', about a young woman growing up in Iran before, during, and after the revolution.

>1) I must repeat that the fact that the picture portrays actual soldiers is neither here nor >there, nor is acceptance of gay people in the military or anything like that.

Well, true. That thread of conversation is worthwhile, but yes, tangential to your point.

>What I am interested in is only what a casual reader (or perhaps someone who is not >much into SCD) would get form the picture. I don't think the picture is offensive in any >way, but believe it can be open to interpretation... This brings me to my next point...

Sure, anything is open to interpretation, which was kind of my point about Le Grande
Illusion in the last message - you see robust soldiers putting on dress purely for
performance (at least I think that's what you were arguing?), while I
see undertones of possible homoeroticism; both legitimate reactions, I think.

So yes, it is not entirely unreasonable that someone
(within or without the SCD community - you think more so out than
in, but for argument's sake) could look at this picture and see 'camp'; indeed, the image of muscle bound soldier grappling with other muscle bound soldiers has have cultural precendence of camp (more on film: '300', anyone, speaking of accidental camp?), so it's not an interpretation that is coming completely out of the blue.

But why is it a problem if people interpret it as such? And also, if it's not offensive in anyway, why use phrases like 'dangerous' and 'worrying' when discussing people who *don't*
see that interpretation?

>But then, given that, why do the editors go out of their way to put on the cover the young >and healthy, as opposed to the old and limping that make up the majority of the SCD >community (in England and Scotland at least)? If the magazine is to be read only by the >converted, why put a "younger" spin on it? Who are they trying to reach to and why? The >same applies to the website whose banners are full of university students...

Wait, I thought we were talking about the 'campness' of the dancers, not their youthfulness.

Perhaps the older set like *looking* at younger people dancing? Or maybe the 'cult of youth' that permeates most of society has taken hold of RSCDS as much as any other organisation? Younger people maybe, to the editors' eyes, look better in photographs (which is not to
say that the older set are not photogenic)? Perhaps the editors aren't entirely clear in the magazine's raison
d'être, and are confusing the promotional
(for outsiders and casual onlookers)
with the celebrational (for us in the community)?

A host of possible reasons, all much better explained in Anselm's most recent message, and with his point that such concerns (if geniune, as opposed to pulling our leg for the fun of it, which may be what's going on here...) are probably best directed to the editors for discussion.

Jacqui
(Aussie in Cambridge)


Previous message: The Magazine's riddle: the solution (Anselm Lingnau)
Next message: The Magazine's riddle: the solution (Lara Friedman-Shedlov)
Previous in thread: The Magazine's riddle: the cover (smiskoe)
Next in thread: Flags of Our Fathers (hways)
A Django site.